UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ In re: OMAR A. DUWAIK, Debtor.

_____________ ____________ OMAR A. DUWAIK, Appellant,

v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Successor in Interest by purchase from the FDIC as Receiver of W ashington Mutual Bank, FKA Washington Mutual Bank FA, Appellee. No. 17-1385 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-00142-MSK) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase ) alleges that it is the holde r of a promissory note executed by appellant Omar Du waik and secured by several p arcels of real estate, including a house. Duwaik file d for bankruptcy under Chapter 1 1, which triggered an

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel h as determined unanimously that oral argument would not mat erially assist in the determina tion of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is th erefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 12, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 automatic stay of all litigation against him under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But when he failed to make payments to Chase under t he terms of the confirmed Chap ter 11 plan, Chase moved the bankruptcy court for r elief from the automatic stay s o that it could pursue foreclosure on the real estate. T he bankruptcy court granted t he motion, and Duwaik appealed to the United States Dis trict Court for the District o f Colorado. While the appeal was pending, Duwaik sough t from the district court an in junction pending appeal to prevent Chase from foreclosin g on the real estate. The dist rict court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of relie f from the stay a nd denied the request for an injunction. Duwaik appeals the rulings o f the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Duwaik raises numerous issues regarding the merits of t he district court’s rulings. B ut we need not address those issues because we resolve the ap peal on procedur al grounds. Du waik’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has been d ismissed by the bankruptcy cour t, 1 so his challenge to the relief from stay is moot. And the district court properly refused to consider Duwaik’s request for an injunction because h e did not first pursue that relief in the bankruptcy

court. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B) , a stay in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding expires when the proceeding is dismissed. At this point, setti ng aside the order lifting the stay would therefore accomplish nothing. Because the appeal of the district court’s order can have no real-world consequences, the issue is moot and we l ack jurisdiction to

1 The order dismissing the Chapter 11 proceeding postdates the filing of the opening brief and is not part of the reco rd on appeal. B ut we grant Ch ase’s request to take judicial notice of this federal-court document. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).3 address the matter. See In re Ames , 973 F.2d 849, 852 (10th Cir. 1992) (“[B]ecause the bankruptcy court properly dismi ssed debtors’ bankruptcy action, that court’s order granting the Bank relief from th e automatic stay is moot.”); McClendon v. City of Albuquerque , 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1 996) (mootness is “a matter of jurisdiction”). Because mootness has pr evented us from reviewing the district c ourt’s order lifting the stay, that order should be va cated by the district court. See Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. Agric. , 414 F.3d 1207, 12 13 (10th Cir. 2005) (“ When a case becomes moot pending appeal, the general practice is to vacate th e judgment below and remand wit h directions to dismiss.”). Plaintiff’s reply brief argues th at despite the dismissal of hi s original Chapter 11 proceeding, the issue is not moo t because he is back in bankrup tcy. But he refers to a new bankruptcy proceeding under C hapter 13, not the Chapter 11 proceeding underlying the issues in this appeal. Wheth er to lift the stay in the Cha pter 13 proceeding is a distinct matter. We also reject Duwaik’s challeng e to the district court’s denia l of his request for an injunction pendi ng appeal. Under Fed. R . Bankr. P. 8007(a)( 1)(C), a party in a bankruptcy proceeding who is see king “an order suspending, modi fying, restoring or granting an injunction while an ap peal is pending” ordinarily m ust first move for relief in the bankruptcy court. Doing so i s excused only if the party ca n “show that moving first in the bankruptcy court would be impracticable .” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8 007(b)(2)(A). The district court did not abuse its d iscretion when it refused to consider Duwaik’s request for injunctive relief because he had neither pursued relief in the bankruptcy court nor4 attempted to show that first f iling a motion in the bankruptcy court would have been impracticable. Cf. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC , 500 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir. 2007) (denial of preliminary injunctio n is reviewed for abuse of disc retion). Duwaik makes two arguments befor e this court as to why the dist rict court’s disposition was improp er. But the record shows that Duwaik did not present these arguments to the district court . Because he did not properly p reserve those arguments, they are forfeited in this court. See Ave. Capital Mgmt. II, L.P. v. Schaden , 843 F.3d 876, 885 (10th Cir. 2016) (“An appella nt forfeits an argument by fai ling to preserve it in district court.”)
We REMAND to the district court to vacat e the order granting relief from the stay and in all other respects AFFIRM the judgment below.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge